From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 3, 1977
344 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. DD-13.

April 1, 1977. Rehearing Denied May 3, 1977.

Appeal from the Marion County, Circuit Court, W.T. Swigert, J.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen.; and Patti Englander, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


Pursuant to plea bargaining, Baker pled guilty to a charge of uttering a forged instrument. When accepting the plea, the trial court failed to advise Baker the maximum sentence for the offense. Although Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975), suggests this be done, it is dictum.

The Williams case holds that the violation of a rule of procedure does not require reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that noncompliance resulted in prejudice. The burden is on the defendant to clearly prove prejudice. No prejudice is shown by the record presented to us. In fact, it appears that defendant received less than the maximum sentence. What difference would it have made if he had known what the maximum sentence was?

We affirm.

BOYER, C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.


Summaries of

Baker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
May 3, 1977
344 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Baker v. State

Case Details

Full title:FRANK HOWARD BAKER, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT), v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: May 3, 1977

Citations

344 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

State v. Fox

There was no prejudice by the omission to advise the defendant of the maximum penalty. Baker v. State, 344…

Rodriguez v. State

While I concur in the determination to afford the appellant an evidentiary hearing on his 3.850 claim, I…